From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Subject: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:01:53 +0100
>
> [...]
>
> > So, to be more precise it should have been
> >
> >
> > log:entails
> > _:1 owl:oneOf ( _:2 ) .
> > _:2 a owl:Restriction .
> > _:2 owl:onProperty rdf:type .
> > _:2 hasClassQ _:1 .
> ^owl:
> > _:2 maxCardinalityQ "0" .
> ^owl:
>
> OK Peter, I've re-re-re-ad your mail and think
> I understand it better now
> BUT please try to help us with the following:
> 1. using such entailment rules as in
> http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3
> (this is just further play/elaboration of the
> RDFS MT entailment rules as in
> http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3)
> we can never derive a ... owl:oneOf ... statement
> (there is just no fact, nor rule consequence
> that matches it, so in fact we already fail there)
> so how could it ever be satisfied???
I'm not sure why you are asking the question, but nevertheless ...
I agree that http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3 does not sanction
any oneOf consequences. Therefore, you will not get
John a person .
to imply
John a [ owl:oneOf ( John ) ].
from http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3.
All this says, however, is that there are desirable inferences that
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3 does not sanction, i.e.,
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3 is incomplete. Are you claiming
that it is complete?
> 2. if that can indeed be entailed,
> could you please SHOW THE PROOF???
Proof in what system? I have indicated that this would be a semantic
consequence in a model theoretic semantics that supports inferences that I
claim are desirable. I have not written down a proof theory that is
sound and complete for this model theory.
> --
> Jos De Roo
peter